Cops lying about being cops -

[Marvin]

So, it is (or was) a common misconception that police can't lie if you ask them directly if they're police. It's a misconception among prostitutes that, if you ask the john "are you a cop", the cop can't arrest you if they lie.

Now, this is obviously false. Most things an ordinary citizen can do, a cop can do in the collection of evidence. Cops regularly do things like pretend to be electricians or plumbers to gain access to suspect's homes, and that's usually legal.

But how far does it go?

The other day, a city building inspector asked me to unlock the sally port next to my door so she could look at the neighbors backyard. It's not my place to be letting random people into my neighbor's backyard, so I checked her ID. She also gave me a business card. Impersonating a city official is probably illegal and so because of the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree, any evidence acquired while impersonating a city official would be thrown out.

And this got me thinking: how far does this principle go? And how far should this principle go? What do you guys think?

 

[An Ounce of Vagina]

If a cop she would probably have to have a warrant in that case.

 

[AnOminous]

So, it is (or was) a common misconception that police can't lie if you ask them directly if they're police. It's a misconception among prostitutes that, if you ask the john "are you a cop", the cop can't arrest you if they lie.

Now, this is obviously false. Most things an ordinary citizen can do, a cop can do in the collection of evidence. Cops regularly do things like pretend to be electricians or plumbers to gain access to suspect's homes, and that's usually legal.

If it constitutes a search, and it probably would, they need a warrant or exigent circumstances, or some legal justification for doing it beyond merely that they felt like it. Also, most warrants require knocking and announcing to be executed. For surreptitious surveillance, they need more of a justification.

There are ways of going about this. For instance, getting permission from at least one person at the premises.

But how far does it go?

The other day, a city building inspector asked me to unlock the sally port next to my door so she could look at the neighbors backyard. It's not my place to be letting random people into my neighbor's backyard, so I checked her ID. She also gave me a business card. Impersonating a city official is probably illegal and so because of the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree, any evidence acquired while impersonating a city official would be thrown out.

And this got me thinking: how far does this principle go? And how far should this principle go? What do you guys think?

It's difficult to say exactly how far it goes, because the case law is all over the place in at least the contested areas.

There are tons of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, too, such as the doctrine of inevitable discovery, independent source, etc. Fruit of the poisonous tree generally only applies when the misconduct is the source of the evidence and it wouldn't have been discovered otherwise.

For instance, suppose police illegally search a car during a stop and it would have otherwise been impounded and searched, regardless of circumstances. If the evidence would have inevitably been discovered anyway, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply. Similarly, if the police obtained evidence from two places, one of them illegally, and the source of the legitimately obtained evidence is unconnected with misconduct, the evidence gets in.

Like the hearsay rule, the exclusionary rule has as many holes in it as Swiss cheese.

Remember, the exclusionary rule should be limited in scope because it has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the suspect. In fact, it only applies to evidence admitted in a criminal case, that is, it only directly affects those who are very likely guilty. It doesn't depend on the evidentiary value of the material. In fact, most evidence excluded under the rule is strong evidence of guilt, or there wouldn't be any objection to admitting it.

The rule basically protects the guilty in its direct action. As (future) Supreme Court Justice Cardozo said of the rule: "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." That is, the rule punishes misconduct by the police, but not by directly punishing the police. It instead punishes society, by letting go a probably guilty criminal.

The reason for this is indirect benefit. It only benefits society at large, and innocent people, by dissuading law enforcement from rampantly engaging in illegal searches, because they know they won't benefit from it. In fact, their cases will be thrown out to the extent they rely on illegally obtained evidence. Therefore, there are less illegal searches of innocent people because there must be a particularized suspicion to justify a search, that is, the police must already know enough that they are less likely to search innocent people incorrectly.

So the rule should only go as far as necessary to preserve its deterrent effect. There is no general "right to get away with a crime if the police screw up."

 

[Marvin]

If it constitutes a search, and it probably would, they need a warrant or exigent circumstances, or some legal justification for doing it beyond merely that they felt like it. Also, most warrants require knocking and announcing to be executed. For surreptitious surveillance, they need more of a justification.

There are ways of going about this. For instance, getting permission from at least one person at the premises.



It's difficult to say exactly how far it goes, because the case law is all over the place in at least the contested areas.

There are tons of exceptions to the exclusionary rule, too, such as the doctrine of inevitable discovery, independent source, etc. Fruit of the poisonous tree generally only applies when the misconduct is the source of the evidence and it wouldn't have been discovered otherwise.

For instance, suppose police illegally search a car during a stop and it would have otherwise been impounded and searched, regardless of circumstances. If the evidence would have inevitably been discovered anyway, the exclusionary rule doesn't apply. Similarly, if the police obtained evidence from two places, one of them illegally, and the source of the legitimately obtained evidence is unconnected with misconduct, the evidence gets in.

Like the hearsay rule, the exclusionary rule has as many holes in it as Swiss cheese.

Interesting.

Well, I'm mostly specifically interested in identifying police. Like, in the example I gave, they police obviously can't impersonate a city official to obtain access to my neighbor's yard. But if they were pretending to be, say, a plumber, that would be easier, because it's easier, legally, to pretend to be a plumber.

Is there a way to reliably distinguish a plumber and a cop? I could check his ID, but they could use a real ID. If I called his boss and he verified his identity, that might help, but the boss could lie and it's probably not illegal (most of the time, anyway).

Most of the exceptions you mentioned probably don't apply to a house, because it's less likely that discovering evidence in a house is inevitable.

Now, as I write this, I'm realizing that this is completely moot. They could get an actual plumber to go, and just have him testify. There's no reason for an actual cop to do anything.

Remember, the exclusionary rule should be limited in scope because it has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the suspect. In fact, it only applies to evidence admitted in a criminal case, that is, it only directly affects those who are very likely guilty. It doesn't depend on the evidentiary value of the material. In fact, most evidence excluded under the rule is strong evidence of guilt, or there wouldn't be any objection to admitting it.

The rule basically protects the guilty in its direct action. As (future) Supreme Court Justice Cardozo said of the rule: "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." That is, the rule punishes misconduct by the police, but not by directly punishing the police. It instead punishes society, by letting go a probably guilty criminal.

The reason for this is indirect benefit. It only benefits society at large, and innocent people, by dissuading law enforcement from rampantly engaging in illegal searches, because they know they won't benefit from it. In fact, their cases will be thrown out to the extent they rely on illegally obtained evidence. Therefore, there are less illegal searches of innocent people because there must be a particularized suspicion to justify a search, that is, the police must already know enough that they are less likely to search innocent people incorrectly.

So the rule should only go as far as necessary to preserve its deterrent effect. There is no general "right to get away with a crime if the police screw up."

I agree in theory, but I'd want to distinguish intentional fuckups and mere procedural fuckups. If the cops intentionally violate your rights, then I would say you do have a right to get away with a crime because of that. You can't prove a crime if the cops aren't following the rules, because it waters down what it means to "prove" something.

Now, little things like having the incorrect date on a warrant, assuming they're done in good faith, are OK.

 

[AnOminous]

Now, as I write this, I'm realizing that this is completely moot. They could get an actual plumber to go, and just have him testify. There's no reason for an actual cop to do anything.

If he's acting as an agent of the police, evidence he found would be subject to the same exclusions.

Now, on the other hand, if a plumber just happened to poke around and find a dead body in your house and called the cops, he wouldn't be subject to the rule, because he isn't law enforcement and is not acting on their behalf. This also comes up in situations like when a storage place stumbles across evidence of wrongdoing in a customer's space and calls the cops. Or more recently, when some moron takes a PC or a smartphone to the shop and a technician finds CP on it.

 

[Marvin]

If he's acting as an agent of the police, evidence he found would be subject to the same exclusions.

Interesting.

Now, on the other hand, if a plumber just happened to poke around and find a dead body in your house and called the cops, he wouldn't be subject to the rule, because he isn't law enforcement and is not acting on their behalf. This also comes up in situations like when a storage place stumbles across evidence of wrongdoing in a customer's space and calls the cops. Or more recently, when some moron takes a PC or a smartphone to the shop and a technician finds CP on it.

Oh yeah, a lot of the more extensive investigation techniques isn't needed a lot of the time, I would imagine. People fuck up so much. Like how loose the founder of silk road was with information.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

So, it is (or was) a common misconception that police can't lie if you ask them directly if they're police. It's a misconception among prostitutes that, if you ask the john "are you a cop", the cop can't arrest you if they lie.

Now, this is obviously false. Most things an ordinary citizen can do, a cop can do in the collection of evidence. Cops regularly do things like pretend to be electricians or plumbers to gain access to suspect's homes, and that's usually legal.

But how far does it go?

The other day, a city building inspector asked me to unlock the sally port next to my door so she could look at the neighbors backyard. It's not my place to be letting random people into my neighbor's backyard, so I checked her ID. She also gave me a business card. Impersonating a city official is probably illegal and so because of the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree, any evidence acquired while impersonating a city official would be thrown out.

And this got me thinking: how far does this principle go? And how far should this principle go? What do you guys think?

There was a big case around this issue in the UK a while back where women were suing the state because undercover cops had sex and long term relationships with women they were spying on (In some cases children were born out of the relationship).

The courts ruled that no criminal charges took place, they also said it was right for undercover police to have sex with activists if it might make their cover more plausible or if they thought not having sex might blow their cover.

I can understand the reasoning but it seems to me that police being deceptive has a lot of potential for abuse.

 

[Marvin]

There was a big case around this issue in the UK a while back where women were suing the state because undercover cops had sex and long term relationships with women they were spying on (In some cases children were born out of the relationship).

The courts ruled that no criminal charges took place, they also said it was right for undercover police to have sex with activists if it might make their cover more plausible or if they thought not having sex might blow their cover.

I can understand the reasoning but it seems to me that police being deceptive has a lot of potential for abuse.

That's bizarre as shit. It's not even the legal aspect that gets me, so much as the political aspect of wasting time and money having your cops fucking impregnate the subjects of your investigation. Like there's children out there born as a result of a criminal investigation. That's nuts.

Like, unless you're investigating something crazy like terrorists smuggling nukes or some shit, producing children as a result of your investigation totally isn't kosher.

 

[DNJACK]

AN undercover cop marrying you is ground for legal life termination in my book.

 

[Holdek]

Well, I'm mostly specifically interested in identifying police. Like, in the example I gave, they police obviously can't impersonate a city official to obtain access to my neighbor's yard. But if they were pretending to be, say, a plumber, that would be easier, because it's easier, legally, to pretend to be a plumber.

Is there a way to reliably distinguish a plumber and a cop? I could check his ID, but they could use a real ID. If I called his boss and he verified his identity, that might help, but the boss could lie and it's probably not illegal (most of the time, anyway).

Ask him to fix a toilet.

I jest, but prosts sometimes ask johns to show them their dicks, and drug dealers ask big-money buyers to sample the product in front of them. I don't know how reliable that is but I imagine most undercover cops don't want to do it, at least.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't know how reliable that is but I imagine most undercover cops don't want to do it, at least.

Undercover cops "going native" is kind of a problem. They're not supposed to, but the most effective ones are the ones who fit in to their environment. It isn't actually all that unusual, though, for drug dealers not to be drug users. Sort of like any other job, someone on drugs is a liability.

 

[Fapcup]

Police officers can't themselves break the law during an undercover operation, but they can lie and refuse being police as much as they want to.

Similarly, the point about "proving" you're not police by whipping out your dick, kinda sounds like an urban legend.
(And surely a cop who doesn't mind exposing his goods in order to bust a prostitute, wouldn't have any problems with denying it ever happened, in court...)

Regarding the use of undercover police officers in general, however, I thinks it makes a mockery out of the whole judicial system, and should be illegal.

It's mostly a North American phenomenon, in fact. In the UK it's used on very rare occasions, but in the rest of Europe, police aren't allowed to engage in undercover operations.

Why? For the very simple reason that by doing it, police officers to an extent are encouraging a crime to take place. And usually end up prosecuting a crime that may not have taken place, if not for the police.

 

[MasterDisaster]

America; where we fight crimes by committing them.

 

[AN/ALR56]

Without undercover police here or informants we wouldn't have arrests,shit is insanely dangerous especially the incredible torture and punishments for rating out on drug lords,also our feds have a huge suicide rate.

 

[AnOminous]

Undercover cops are very good at catching the kind of idiots who go looking for contract killers who don't have contacts for that kind of thing.

Unfortunately what they're mainly good at is vice kinds of crimes, like drugs and prostitution, that arguably shouldn't even be illegal in the first place.

Undercover policing is an entirely valid tactic, though, and it would be basically impossible to catch big time criminal organizations without doing it to some extent. You're not going to catch terrorists or murder for hire organizations without them.

 

[TowinKarz]

Regarding the use of undercover police officers in general, however, I thinks it makes a mockery out of the whole judicial system, and should be illegal.

Why? For the very simple reason that by doing it, police officers to an extent are encouraging a crime to take place. And usually end up prosecuting a crime that may not have taken place, if not for the police.

That's a fine idealistic objection, but unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. And I don't believe that "no crime" would have taken place without a police sting. Just look at all the times they lay out a "bait" car or leave a package on the back of a truck and wait for it to get stolen... that's a little bit more than some "harmless" vice crime. And there are legal safeguards and case law in place so that outright entrapment doesn't take place. Courts have held that there must be clear evidence that the non-law enforcement officer(s) involved were truly going to break the law to start with. If the neighborhood electric meter guy keeps pestering me every day I see him to buy a dime bag off him for weeks and weeks until I finally say "yes" just to get rid of him and he whips out a badge... that's not going to stick.

And, on just a bit of a personal powerlevel here, I work in an occupation that requires me to be out in the public and enforcing regulatory law. I'm not going to bug/bore you with what it is, but think of it as being the guy in charge of enforcing zoning law, or checking up on expired parking meters. The number of times I've been accosted by paranoid/nosey people who demand I show them a warrant or else they'll citizens arrest/shoot me is enough to make me wish a basic civics class was mandatory so more people know exactly how the real 5th Amendment works, not the TV version they keep throwing at me.

I do NOT need to have a warrant to order a junk car towed off the shoulder of the road, and I do NOT have to show you my driver's license, that has personal information on it, I'd rather NOT you know where I live so you can come around and get even with me later.